Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

fakespot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 384 posts

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#191

Post by derefr »

unethical_ban wrote: post #120
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

Normally I'd say... "They'd better write it in the bylaws that Mozilla isn't allowed to buy any more companies" but a system for identifying fake content on the web might (unlike all the other Mozilla acquisitions such as the thoroughly pizzled Pocket) improve the web browsing experience.

The problem with Pocket was that it was a separate brand name with a weird UX. If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I use Vivaldi now for two reasons: One, it is better than Firefox Mobile, and two, I like the ergonomics of its bookmarks and reading list sync. Having the ability for the browser to be a suite isn't crazy.

> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir.

I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list.

But yeah, in the end that probably wasn't nearly as important as getting people who didn't already use Pocket to see the reading list as "Firefox's reading list" rather than some channel-partner bloatware encroachment.

A happy medium would probably have been if the Firefox reading list was its own skin of Pocket, and synced using your Firefox Sync account, without needing to create a separate Pocket account; but when you first went to use it, it would ask if you want to sign into your Pocket account; and if you do, then your Pocket account would be merged with your Firefox Sync account, because "Pocket Sync is now part of Firefox Sync."

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#192

Post by derefr »

purpleidea wrote: post #14

I'd really love for Mozilla to focus on actually... you know... building a web browser. There are 1,000's of issues firefox needs to improve, from integrating native gnome-keyring support, to performance, to porting to rust, to... Let me PM or run Mozilla for a year. We won't buy any more companies, and we're going to focus on engineering.

Mozilla doesn't build Firefox (which is what I assume you're meaning here by "building a web browser.") Firefox — and all those system-integration features you're mentioning — are developed by Firefox Corporation.

Mozilla is a separate company, with separate employees, that does everything except building Firefox.

(This division was originally created to firewall off the corporate moneys donated to, and influence of corporate developers on, Firefox, from the rest of Mozilla. Back when Google was sponsoring Firefox to use Google as its search engine, their money went exclusively to Firefox Corporation, with none of that money ever going to Mozilla.)

Note that this doesn't mean that Mozilla doesn't build a web browser. Mozilla develop the engine (Gecko/Servo) that goes into Firefox; and they also co-develop some of the Gecko/Servo-based browsers used by various FOSS projects — Tor Browser, for example. This is roughly the same structure as how the open-source Chromium project (which produces its own "Chromium browser") is the basis for the closed-source Google Chrome.

Interestingly, this means that for Firefox Corporation to get features into Gecko, they have to submit PRs "upstream" to Mozilla, who might very well reject them as "only serving corporate interests at the expense of the user." This is quite unlike Chromium, where both Chromium and Chrome are ultimately steered by Google.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#193

Post by atdt »

user3939382 wrote: post #151
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #127

You'd think that Mozilla has an excess of funding and has covered absolutely all needs in the browser space leading them to branch out like this... but the browser really needs a lot more hands and funding, I honestly can't make sense of this. And Fakespot: they present themselves as a company that focuses on detecting AI-generated content from human-generated content. It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mo…

I'm happy for them to branch out, but it is discouraging that once every 3-4 months I run into a bug or feature I need, google it, and am taken to a bug report in their tracker from 5-10 years ago that hasn't been touched.

I don't know of any software projects of comparable size and complexity that doesn't have years-old bugs languishing in limbo. This is the normal state of affairs for a web browser, and it's the result of human-factor bottlenecks that aren't easy to solve even for well-capitalized projects. Large projects end up having subsystems that work reliably enough, such that their developers can afford to shift their attention elsewhere. Over time various details fall out of working memory. You get to a point where there is a high up-front cost to making any significant changes to the subsystem because it requires a significant investment of time for people to acquire (or re-acquire) the degree of familiarity that is needed to make such changes comfortably. If this cost can be amortized over a large backlog of feature requests and bugs, so it can keep someone busy for a while, then it is worthwhile. But it often isn't.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#194

Post by fafzv »

failbuffer wrote: post #118
KingOfCoders wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember "Firefox OS"?

It was a fantastic gamble IMO. Low chance of success, but enormous payoff if it had succeeded. Imagine a commercially viable alternative to iPhone and Android with multiple manufacturers and a completely open platform. Ultimately, I think they came to market too late and Android moved into the niche (low end market) they were targeting.

They took Gecko, the slowest rendering engine that there was (is?), made an entire OS around it, and put it on the slowest mobile phones that existed back then. That was not a gamble, that was throwing money down the drain.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#195

Post by waveBidder »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #127

You'd think that Mozilla has an excess of funding and has covered absolutely all needs in the browser space leading them to branch out like this... but the browser really needs a lot more hands and funding, I honestly can't make sense of this. And Fakespot: they present themselves as a company that focuses on detecting AI-generated content from human-generated content. It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mo…

they've been the one thing that actually makes Amazon remotely useful for years, so I'm glad to see them getting outside help from a nonprofit

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#196

Post by hospitalhusband »

franga2000 wrote: post #161
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #127

You'd think that Mozilla has an excess of funding and has covered absolutely all needs in the browser space leading them to branch out like this... but the browser really needs a lot more hands and funding, I honestly can't make sense of this. And Fakespot: they present themselves as a company that focuses on detecting AI-generated content from human-generated content. It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mo…

> It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mole against the all the biggest AI companies in the world. That's exactly what they're doing with the biggest ad trackers and browser vendors. A lot of Mozilla's "side-projects" are stupid and I also agree they should focus more on Firefox, but this one is pretty in line with their general mission of "we'll fight the big guys because, if we don't, nobody else will".

Mozilla is almost entirely funded by half a billion dollars a year from Google. They are a vassal.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#197

Post by pfisch »

hospitalhusband wrote: post #196
franga2000 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like they've set out to play Whac-A-Mole against the all the biggest AI companies in the world. That's exactly what they're doing with the biggest ad trackers and browser vendors. A lot of Mozilla's "side-projects" are stupid and I also agree they should focus more on Firefox, but this one is pretty in line with their general mission of "we'll fight the big guys because, if we don't, nobody else will".

Mozilla is almost entirely funded by half a billion dollars a year from Google. They are a vassal.

So was apple once.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#198

Post by unethical_ban »

hgsgm wrote: post #185
unethical_ban wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Pocket was that it was a separate brand name with a weird UX. If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I use Vivaldi now for two reasons: One, it is better than Firefox Mobile, and two, I like the ergonomics of its bookmarks and reading list sync. Having the ability for the browser to be a suite isn't crazy.

Chrome has a reading list feature, and a separate new tab page spam feature. Firefox combined them both in Pocket.

I think Chrome added the reading list feature recently - I've been using Vivaldi for close to a year now. And while I know Vivaldi uses the chromium engine below, it's nice to have a non-google browser anyway.

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#199

Post by wslh »

jfk13 wrote: post #63
wslh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying that is always indicative of execution but I don't think Mozilla has any indicative of good execution? Hey, they invented a new programming language to reengineer the browser. The programming language is very succesful and it is growing in market share but Firefox continues to be written in C++. IMHO there is a room for innovation in this space, long term but you can see if this happenning observing t…

> Firefox continues to be written in C++ The amount of Rust code in Firefox is pretty substantial, and growing. Did you expect an instant rewrite?

Rust is from 2015, one year ago the Rust code in Firefox was 10%. What is now?

Re: Fakespot Is Acquired by Mozilla

#200

Post by zgk7iqea »

JohnBooty wrote: post #174
eimrine wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you have an experience that Chrome works better on old-end hardware? I have in an active use some 2005-2013 hardware and I describe Firefox as significant worse (freezes and consumes more memory per tab), I do not like Chrome but I use it because I use that hardware sometimes. Another story is if computer has at least Haswell/8GB. Than Firefox unleashes its ability to work just fine even with a lot of extension…

Another story is if computer has at least Haswell/8GB My oldest in-use machine is an i7-3770 (3.4hgz, 4 core) with 16GB of RAM and an SSD running Windows 10. That's an Ivy Bridge from ~2011 which is a generation older than your Haswell but, honestly, it's still pretty modern... performs at about 50% of a 2023 i5 in CPU benchmarks. FF absolutely smooth on there. Typical usage on that machine is usual recreational web…

IIRC apple significantly improved safari performance in the last year or so. It’s even faster than chrome in a lot of cases
Post reply on HN